2. Actually the 1950’s was the time in which the U.S. was starting to go from the patriarchy to the matriarchy. Don’t believe me, ask DCM. He was alive back then, and he saw it happening with his own two eyes. So given that fact, I don’t think that the 1950’s is a time period to brag about.

3. No. Just no. Are you telling me that those men who sailed all the way to North America with Middle Ages ship technology weren’t real men?? (Okay, that was the 900’s, but same sort of deal). The point is that back then, there were real tests, not invisible tests like GL always talks about.

4. It is relevant. It’s relevant because it’s a real test of being a real man. Not an invisible test like GL is always talking about. And real men prove that they are real men through real tests. Not invisible tests.

1. I said “aspire” to be Men of Real Character etc, never claimed to have attained it. Probably the best anyone can hope for.

2. I once read somewhere that human happiness & fulfillment were at an all time high in the 1950s in the US. No idea how one can really objectively measure such a thing, but somehow I’m inclined to believe it.

3. You argument that values from the year 800 are more “traditional” than those from 1950s is fallacious. By your logic, values form the Stone Age would then be the most traditional and ideal. Stone Age societies were matrilineal and barbaric much like societies today in some parts of Africa and Papua New Guinea and strange places like that. In fact, that’s the direction the feminised West & its imitators is heading back towards as well.

4. Your statement about 3100 mile races is idiotic. It is totally irrelevant and a red herring. The debate is about inculcating good values in individuals & societies… which is totally unrelated to whether someone is able or willing to run a 3100 race or not.

“I, and all others who who aspire to be Men of Real Character will never support those who ridiculously advocate PROSTITUTION, SEX TOURISM and the “FUCKING AND CHUCKING” of HUMAN BEINGS, as part of their purported mission of “Promoting Traditional Values, [and] Fighting Against Feminism, Cultural Marxism, and Other Threats to the Traditional Way of Life…” (!!)”

You said “Men of Real Character”, referring to yourself and this other group of people, which is essentially the same thing as “Real men”, only in an elongated form.

And by the way Socon, both you and Rexpat have no clue what a “traditional value” truly is, and what the traditional way of life truly is.

I know what it is, and that’s why I did not change that tagline when you people kept prodding me.

When you folks say “traditional values”, you folks mean values from the year 1950.

When I say “traditional values”, I mean values from the year 800. Back when men had to prove themselves through real tests, not “invisible tests”, which GL constantly claims exist and are supposedly “traditional”.

Every single Viking saga and anglo-saxon test from that time centered around some truly real man proving that he was a real man through real tests. Whether it was through valor in war, through sailing to North America in a Medieval longship, .

Now if you want to prove that you are a truly real man through running, then you have to run and finish the 3,100 mile race. Yes, that’s what I said. Folks like Rexpat think that I have no standards for what a real man is, but truth be told my standards for what it is are much higher than any of yours.

Anyway, at least I will be able to prove that I am more real than these “Real men” through defeating them in this marathon. How do I know that there will be “Real men” competing in this marathon? I’m guessing. But honestly there ought to be at least one.

But nonetheless I will look.

I know Rexpat said I was not a “Real man”, so therefore according to him I must be a fake man. He never explicitly said “fake man”, but he said I was not a “Real man”, which is the same thing.

Anyway, as for #1, if I can find a quote from you that said that I was not a real man, and I’m sure there is one, then that constitutes calling me a fake man. This is because as I’m sure you know, real and fake are contradictory opposites, i.e. if you’re not real, you’re fake.

In fact, I’ve gotcha there Socon, since you wrote an entire blog post calling me and others lunatics, and saying that we “do not speak for real men”. So you never explicitly said “they are not real men”, but you heavily, heavily implied it by saying that we don’t speak for them.

As for #2, you never explicitly said “I am a real man”. What I think you did though is that you pointed to a certain group of people and called them “real men”, and then implied that you were a part of that group.

I’m sure I can find a quote. More on this later.

After you finish your 26 mile marathon, I have another challenge for you.

I challenge you to provide links to any blog posts or comments whe

[1] I have labelled myself a “real man”

or

[2] I have labelled any individual or category of individuals “fake men”.

Failing which, an apology would be in order.